Monday, 31 May 2010

From the Radio Times: "Challenging the received wisdom that atheism is a more rational position than faith.... Helping Victoria Coren commit heresy are comedians Marcus Brigstocke and Natalie Haynes, and Church of England priest the Rev Richard Coles."

Sure, it's expensive (though not quite as expensive as we had been led to believe), but to date it's the only large-scale sceptical gathering held in the UK. For some people the cost of travel and accommodation will be more of an issue than the ticket price, but this year I've secured a room for three nights at a total cost only marginally more than the Metropole's rate for a single night. For this reason I didn't wait for the TAM London Metropole discount to be announced.

Last year's TAM London was an incredible event, but this year's looks likely to surpass it, judging by the great line-up of speakers:

I aim to be in London for four days, from Friday 15th to Monday 18th October, though that may change depending on what fringe events are available. Listen out for some TAM London themed Skepticule episodes soon...

Monday, 24 May 2010

Much of philosophy and theological or religious discussion seems to revolve around the idea of dualism — the mind/body problem. It's a debate that may shed some light on the true nature of consciousness.

I have an experience of my own self that it is something apart from my body, something separate, distinct from my flesh, bones and blood. It's more than likely, I feel, that my "self" is a psychological construct that my brain has created in order to process information in a way that it can perceive as a whole.

Where am I, in my body? Although I sense that I'm in my head, somewhere behind my eyes, I am also in my fingertips as they type on this keyboard. It seems that my brain has created an entire conceptual model of my essence — of "me" — that is at once the sum of all my parts, yet more. I have a concept of who and what I am, which is this entity — this identity — that I call "me", yet this is probably no more than the aggregation of a complex series of perceptual messages that are constantly being processed in my brain.

Back to the example of the keyboard: when I type, I move my fingers in a certain way to achieve the words that appear on screen. But do I, really, move my fingers? What I am in fact doing is flexing the muscles clustered around my wrists, and those muscles, being attached to the bones of my fingers (some distance away, anatomically speaking) cause my fingers to move. But am I doing even that? What causes the muscles around my wrists to flex? What I'm actually doing is sending nerve impulses from my brain to the nerves connected to those muscles.

So how far back must I go to find out where I actually reside in my body?

The answer, I suspect, is that the further back one goes, the more conceptual and abstract the process becomes. The "mental model" of the body that the brain creates — in order to operate the body — is probably just a complex synaptic relationship in some unspecific, diffuse area of the brain. This model is what gives us our sense of identity, of conscious self, when in fact there's nothing there.

I didn't know what to expect of this discussion, but I was keen to hear Adam Rutherford's views as his TV series last year on The Cell was very impressive, featuring J. Craig Venter, who was in the news today. (What Peter Hitchens will make of the news that scientists have created artificial organic life — if indeed they have — is anybody's guess.)

So, the discussion.

Peter Hitchens stated that Christians do not claim that there's no morality without Christianity. This may be true, but I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a Christian tell me that as an atheist I have no means of distinguishing good from evil. Lo and behold, Peter Hitchens then immediately repeated this baseless canard. In response Adam Rutherford instantly nailed the crude fallacy, but unfortunately without effect, for Peter Hitchens' infatuation with his faith appeared impervious to logic.

On the question of secularism, which Peter Hitchens vehemently decried, Adam Rutherford was careful to distinguish this from atheism, pointing out that secularism doesn't deny faith, it only claims that faith should play no part in government. Justin interjected that Peter Hitchens' view is probably that UK society has been founded on a very intimate relationship with the Christian faith. But that's not to say such an intimate relationship is necessarily a good thing. This is perilously close to the argument from tradition.

Peter Hitchens contended that Britain is a country founded on Christianity, and that its laws are based on Christian morality. He claimed that the source of authority for our government is, therefore, Christianity. Too bad his search for the source of morality stops with his faith. I would ask the question: "If morality in Britain is based on Christianity, what is Christian morality based on?" The answer, of course, is that Christianity bases its morality on the shared values built into humanity as a result of evolution. The morality of Christianity was not handed down from on high, whatever may be written in scripture to the contrary. It was based on what people already knew about moral behaviour. Unfortunately those notorious stone tablets introduced some weird pronouncements that continue to skew the moral sense of a significant proportion of the world's population today.

In response to Adam Rutherford's request for the exact identity of Christian moral authority, Peter Hitchens seemed unable to define "Christianity" in any manner that could be used as such an authority. It appeared that he aspires to an authoritarian state but is unable to tell us who or what — in practical, political terms — that authority might be. At this point the discussion veered off into other areas, probably as a result of Peter Hitchens' astonishing assertion that homosexuality is a marginal non-issue. "It's not if you're gay," was Adam Rutherford's understandable response.

Peter Hitchens next condemned divorce, on the basis (amongst others) that it left children without the backing of a stable family — presumably contending that a couple whose marriage has irretrievably broken down (with all the relationship problems such a breakdown would likely entail) can provide a better, more stable "family" than that provided by a single parent who has escaped from a bad marriage. This, of course, is just an example, but it illustrates the danger of generalised condemnation such as Peter Hitchens employed here.

Then came abortion, with Peter Hitchens claiming that killing babies was indefensible in all cases. Adam Rutherford attempted to ascertain if there were any circumstances in which abortion would be an acceptable alternative to adoption, such as a case where the mother's life was endangered by the pregnancy. Peter Hitchens asked for an example of such an instance (implying that he knew of none), and there's been one in the news this very week.

Adam Rutherford next tried to pin him down on what criteria he would use to determine whether or not a collection of cells could be described as a human being, and in response to a question from Justin he explained that science has no hard and fast rule stating at what point a fertilised egg becomes a "person". Peter Hitchens objected to the term "foetus" — claiming (in a spectacular invocation of Godwin's Law) that this was a classic dehumanising tactic. Didn't he realise he was doing the exact obverse in describing a fertilised egg as a "human person"? (In the light of UKIP's response to science questions put to political parties in the run-up to the recent election, it has been suggested that we should now refer to our breakfast eggs as "very small chickens".)

Until this point in the discussion Peter Hitchens appeared to be a fairly rational person who could reasonably support his strong views, but the few seconds of this particular exchange revealed him in his true colours as a Christian fundamentalist in favour of abstinence-only sex education (that is, no sex education at all): "I don't think it's the business of schools to teach people how to put condoms on hockey sticks and bananas." His subsequent rant clearly showed how his views on contraception are exactly aligned with those of Pope Benedict XVI. Thankfully Justin called a break.

Malaysian Custody Dispute Lost Between Courts - NYTimes.com
There's an assumption in this article that is barely mentioned, let alone questioned. The religious "conversion" of a child is in no way equivalent to the religious conversion of an adult. Especially, as seems here, if the child doesn't know it's happened.

Catholic priorities : Pharyngula
PZ Myers despairs of his local Archbishop, who has written a piece decrying gay marriage, claiming (as Catholics do) that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. PZ is not having it:

Two men, two women, a man and a woman, a cooperative commune of many men and women…they can all serve that public purpose. Oh, and in all those cases, who is having sex with whom is pretty much irrelevant to the children, since these typically are not Catholic Sunday schools, so the children won't be participating in the sex.